Patents are very difficult for jurors to understand and the outcome of patent jury trials is generally viewed as inherently unpredictable. Based on our experience having worked on over 20 patent jury trials in venues throughout the United States, we will provide a decision-making framework for how jurors make verdict determinations in patent trials and will identify the key issues that jurors use to decide these cases. The talk also will be of interest to patent prosecutors as the impact of patent language and figures will be discussed. We will offer our recommendations for communicating difficult concepts in writing patents and persuading a lay patent jury.

Speaker:Dr. Eric Rudich is a Senior Litigation Consultant at Magna Legal Services. As an expert in jury psychology, he specializes in identifying powerful themes and arguments, developing persuasive visual graphics, creating sophisticated juror profiles and preparing witnesses. For the past ten years, Dr. Rudich has consulted with both plaintiffs and defendants in cases throughout the United States on a wide range of litigation matters such as antitrust, contract, insurance coverage, intellectual property, product liability, securities fraud, white-collar crime and others. Dr. Rudich also has developed a unique niche of advising investment clients on jury trials that have market significance for publicly-traded litigants. As a litigation consultant, Dr. Rudich has a great deal of expertise in conducting focus groups and trial simulations, assisting with jury selection in high-profile cases, preparing demonstrative evidence and monitoring trials. Before joining Magna, Dr. Rudich was a principal at the NY-based jury research firm and was a jury consultant at a leading national litigation consulting firm. He has appeared as an invited guest on MSNBC, published several articles in leading legal publications, and conducted Continuing Legal Education seminars on jury behavior. Dr. Rudich earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from the University of Florida, Masters in Science degree in Experimental Psychology from Florida Atlantic University, and Ph.D. in Social Psychology from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Rudich is a member of the American Psychology-Law Society and the American Society of Trial Consultants.

If you have problems registering for the June meeting and want to make a reservation, please email Casey atsvipla@yahoo.com.

DEADLINE FOR RESERVATION OR CANCELLATION:Tuesday noon, June 26, 2012. Online registration automatically closes at that time - please make your reservation online by the deadline as there are only a few extra spaces allotted at the meeting for walk-ins. The venue may not be able to serve meals beyond the guaranteed number expected for the meeting.

SVIPLA Tax ID#-77-0491659

MCLE: This event will qualify for 1 hour of CLE credit. The Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider.

SUBMIT YOUR INVENTOR OF THE YEAR NOMINATIONSVIPLA is accepting nominations for the 2011-2012 Inventor of the Year. Please submit a brief description of the accomplishments of your nominee along with appropriate patent information. You are welcome to submit sample patents. Email your nomination to David Tsai, Perkins Coie,dtsai@perkinscoie.com, by July 15. The presentation to the recipient will be made at SVIPLA's September dinner meeting.

Here are some guidelines to provide information for your nomination:

1. A paragraph setting forth the reasons that the inventor should be a candidate for the award. This paragraph briefly describes the field of art to which the candidate’s inventions pertain. (More details about the field can be provided in the background information described below.) The paragraph should then explain the contributions or advances of the candidate’s inventions to the field of art and indicate the significance of those contributions or advances.

2. Patents Attributable to the Inventor. This is simply a list of the numbers and titles of the patents to which the inventor made a substantial contribution in the field of art described above.

3. Background Information regarding technology involved. This information includes some published written material such as a white paper or a website document that describes in more detail the technology in the relevant field of art.